AI prices the risk on every trade
The model computes this counterparty’s probability of default on this trade and sets the collateral from it.
- Post a fraction, pay the balance on delivery
- The more you settle, the less you post
The agentic payment model for conditional settlement.Computable risk, minimal cost.
Atara is a conditional payment protocol. It computes the risk on every payment and takes a fraction up front instead of the whole sum.
Atara
Others
AI-computed risk of default
···%
None
Fee on this order
···%
0.30%
Collateral
···%
100%
Payment condition
Written into
the protocol Subjective
the protocol Subjective
Researchers & collaborators from
An AI-native conditional payment protocol.
Pricing needs somebody to decide the condition was met, and both of them need a record of what actually happened.
The condition is judged on evidence
Whether the condition was met is decided on what the evidence says.
- No position, no profit in the outcome
- Rules published up front
- Release follows the evidence
Real settlement data
Every completed trade leaves one record with a real amount attached: who paid on time, who defaulted.
- Sharper with every settlement
- Clean records post less and less
- Models can be copied, records cannot
The Atara Stack
A payment moves down the stack, and every layer writes into the record at the bottom. Adjudication is the only layer that can send a settlement back up.
Atara-pay
Entry & routing
One surface to integrate against.
- Client access
- API and SDK — one integration for every venue.
- Routing
- Orders, limits, reconciliation, and where this trade settles.
- API keys
- Authentication and scoping per counterparty.
Aegean-consensus
Consensus
The normal path. Many readers, one signed verdict.
- credit model
- What this counterparty is worth, on this trade.
- adjudication model
- Whether the condition was met.
- M-of-N signatures
- Each agent reads one source on its own. No single signer rules.
- verdict proof
- Every ruling carries the evidence it was built from.
Loka-chain
Execution
Funds held by contract, not by us.
- Escrow contract
- Hold / release / rollback; the deadline is enforced by block time.
- Conditional payment
- Release in full, return in full, or split.
- HTLC channel
- Low latency, dispute backstop, instant settlement.
Adjudication
Judgement
The last word when a condition is disputed — and the only ruling that can roll a settlement back.
- dispute window & remedy
- Either side can object inside the window; the remedy is defined before either commits.
- rollback
- A ruling here runs back through execution — the escrow contract unwinds it on chain.
- neutral resolver
- The same adjudication can be sold to markets that need a ruling layer of their own.
Setu
Record · the floor
Every settlement leaves a row.
- Settlement outcomes
- Who paid, who disputed, the final result.
- VLC causal edges
- A verifiable graph of what caused what.
- TEE attestation
- Trust that carries across parties.
Final settlement
- Automated
- Auditable
- Traceable
- Available even when we’re down
Ecosystem
- Multi-chain deployment
- Reputation portability
- Open API
You don’t have to trust us.
Four layers route, judge, execute and record one trade.
Each answers to evidence, not to us.
Routing
One surface takes the order, the limits and the reconciliation, and decides where the trade settles. It is the only thing you integrate against.
One API key, one order. You never pick a chain or a venue.
Judgement
Every trade is read twice — one model prices the counterparty's risk of default, the other rules on whether the condition was met. Neither decides alone: a verdict takes M-of-N signatures and carries the trace of the evidence it was built from.
No single model — and no single operator — can decide your case.
Execution
Funds sit in an escrow contract with three states — hold, release, rollback — and a deadline that block time enforces, not us. The contract is deployed on the chain the counterparty already settles on, so value never leaves the chain it started on.
With every Atara service down, both sides can still withdraw. No bridge.
Record
Every settlement writes one row — who paid, who disputed, how it ruled — written by the settlement itself, not by either side. Each row is linked to the events that caused it, and the credit model reads those rows on the next trade.
The second trade is priced on the first, from settlements rather than self-reported scores.
An AI model assesses the risk in every payment.
01
It reads what this counterparty has actually done
Settlement history, dispute outcomes, verification checks, and where the funds came from.
02
It computes one probability of default
For this counterparty, on this trade. Not a tier set when the account opened.
03
Collateral, fee and recourse follow from that number
What you post, what you pay, and on what evidence it unwinds.
1.8%
probability of default · illustrative
Settlement historyDelivered, late, or defaulted
Dispute outcomesWho was found at fault
Verification checksSix, on both sides
Wallet provenanceWhere the funds came from
Probability
of default
of default
CollateralWhat fraction has to be posted
FeePriced to that probability
RecourseOn what evidence it unwinds
Priced per trade
A limit set when the account opens says nothing about who is on the other side of this one.
A price, not a gate
Other systems answer whether you may proceed. This answers what you post and what you pay.
The exit is written first
How a trade unwinds is fixed before either side commits, not negotiated after something breaks.
Most payment conditions cannot be judged today.
The Atara protocol makes the condition decidable.
Subjective conditions become verifiable tests before the trade
A clause like “pay on acceptable quality” is broken down, before the trade, into standards both sides accept, each bound to a named source of evidence: a document, a reading, or a test result. The ruling is about what the source says, not about what either side believes.
Today, each side reads “acceptable” its own way once money is at stake, and the reading comes off one party’s own instrument.
The judge has no stake in the outcome
Whichever way a case is decided, the judge earns the same. Forfeited collateral never flows to the judge.
Today, a dispute goes to the custodian or the platform: the party that holds the money and takes a cut of the trade it is asked to rule on.
Release follows evidence, not the other side’s confirmation
Objective evidence such as a bank receipt triggers the release. A counterparty that owes performance cannot stall your money by withholding confirmation.
It completesValue to the payee
Evidence never arrivesReturned to the payer
Screening failsReturned before release
Today, you deliver, the other side declines to confirm, and the funds sit in escrow.
